[Overheat]

Hey folks,

I was just browsing ebay and noticed this: Vinyl to DVD-A Transfer. LP to DVD Audio 24bit 192kHz on eBay, also Rock, Albums LPs, Records, Music (end time 02-Jan-09 20:00:00 GMT)

It seems like it's a pretty good idea to me, what do you guys think? Is there any point in me using this service for portable DVD players, or would I be better sticking to my 90s CD player? Are there actually any good Portable DVD-A players?

Anyway, getting OT now, is LP to DVD-A the best way of a vinyl quality sound without a turntable? What does this audiophilic community think?

 

[suicidal_orange]

An audio CD is only 16bit/44.1kHz, and more samples (Hz) means a more accurate recording, which needs more bits to store. Even a portable DVD player would play back a DVD-A at 96khz which is more than twice the sampling rate of a CD, so should sound far better than a vinyl to CD rip, if the player/amp/headphones are good enough. The vinyl setup in that ad certainly isn't cheap and he doesn't use pretty pictures or excess technical specs which suggests he has nothing to hide - that combined with the perfect feedback would seem to make it a good idea to send the odd record off to be done.

Of course, if you have lots of records and a good turntable/phono stage already you'd be better off doing the recording yourself, a quick search on ebay for the ADC used in that ad suggests it costs the same as sending 9 records (probably available cheaper elsewhere or used too) and you already have a computer and can use free software to do the actual recording.

As to whether recording vinyl's is the way to go I think it is - I'm trying to get a setup worthy of recording 24bit/96kHz flacs for the lazyness of not swapping disks while retaining better than CD quality, and so a slammed door won't damage my records (damn modern hollow house!) Also the recordings will play on my ipod, allowing the listening of non loudness war ruined ("digitally remastered") classics on my daily walk to work, which will be great.

 

[Jasper994]

I have a 24/96 transfer of the 180 gram Nirvana Unplugged album that would knock your socks off.

As much as I'd normally argue that CDs can sound as good as vinyl or DVD-A/SACD I haven't heard a CD capture "live sound" anywhere near this good.

That said, my rig sounds better playing CD audio than my cheap DVD-A player playing DVD-A.

 

[panda]

have you compared your nirvana transfer to the cd version of that album? i have a hard time believing that a home already pressed to vinyl transfer is better than a studio release master to redbook transfer.

 

[Overheat]

It makes sense that a vinyl transfer would sound better than a redbook transfer as vinyl is closer to the original recording format in analogue than CD is, and ofcourse CD is dithered quite a lot to fit the sound on it's 700mb, whereas a vinyl transfer to DVD-A has a whole 4.5GB / 8.5GB to play with.

Also, vinyl is transferred from the original source naturally, so as long as you have a decent setup, as the chap in the auction does, that's capable of reproducing that original sound, then your needledrop should be of high standard too.

 

[Herandu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by panda /img/forum/go_quote.gif have you compared your nirvana transfer to the cd version of that album? i have a hard time believing that a home already pressed to vinyl transfer is better than a studio release master to redbook transfer.

Oh, but you are wrong. Don't assume that the person in the studio remastering to CD is in any way superior in knowledge and spends more attention to details than a home boy doing the same thing. Many a remastered CD has an awful waveform pattern compared to the original vinyl, and they are often also full of clipped peaks and amplified noise.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Overheat /img/forum/go_quote.gif It makes sense that a vinyl transfer would sound better than a redbook transfer as vinyl is closer to the original recording format in analogue than CD is, and ofcourse CD is dithered quite a lot to fit the sound on it's 700mb, whereas a vinyl transfer to DVD-A has a whole 4.5GB / 8.5GB to play with. Also, vinyl is transferred from the original source naturally, so as long as you have a decent setup, as the chap in the auction does, that's capable of reproducing that original sound, then your needledrop should be of high standard too.

I am sorry but this is woefully misleading from start to finish, normally I keep out of these threads but this is egregious.

1) Vinyl is not closer to the original recording than an CD. Both formats are representations, just different methods, you can measure which is best by which has a more accurate rendering of the master tape. By pretty much any ratonal criteria CD is more accurate, CD gets you less noise , less distortion, greater linearity, greater dynamic range and less speed variations.


Dithering quite a lot is inaccurate , you apply dither to the Least Significant Bit. Dither is an integral part of bit-reduction and used to decorrelate quantization error. Dither does not compress anything.


2) A Vinyl transfer to DVD-A is redundant in information terms. LP on a good day has maybe 75 - 80db dynamic range, 24 bits gives you 144db massive overkill and wasting space, even lowly 16 bits gives you 96db way more than enough, you just do not need 24 bits to play back a vinyl rip, nor do you need 96K or 192K sampling, you cannot hear 48K or 96K .

Quote:

Also, vinyl is transferred from the original source naturally

This is completely meaningless. What you mean (maybe) is that the transfer stays in the analog domain, assuming a fully analog recording to start with. But ask anyone involved in the process of getting from studio tapes to pressed records and they will tell you just how natural it is not.

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Overheat /img/forum/go_quote.gif It seems like it's a pretty good idea to me, what do you guys think? Is there any point in me using this service for portable DVD players, or would I be better sticking to my 90s CD player? Are there actually any good Portable DVD-A players? Anyway, getting OT now, is LP to DVD-A the best way of a vinyl quality sound without a turntable? What does this audiophilic community think?

There are lots of people out there ripping vinyl to DVD-A and offering downloads. As long as the equipment they are using to actually play the records is top notch, which in this case it obviously is then there is no reason why it won't sound as good or better than a commercial CD.

This is especially useful when a lot of stuff hasn't ever made it to CD and at this stage is unlikely to, and in many cases will be mastered from vinyl anyway. However I'm not sure that offering these rips on ebay is strictly legal as it's unlikely any royalites are being paid.

Personally I find DAT at 16/48 perfectly adequate for transcribing my own vinyl and the machines, being at least semi pro, usually have very good quality ADC converters and sound better than the CDs on my ipod.

But why not just buy a decent 2nd hand turntable? and hunt down those records in charity stores? '70s rock is pretty plentiful 2nd hand for a few dollars a pop, if that's what you're into, and will always sound better on vinyl as this is the medium it was made for.

As far as portable disc players go, I think the early '90s Sony Discmen were the peak of optical disc technology on the move, although I'm not familiar with your particular model. If it's one of the metal transport ones then I doubt you find many portables as good today, in any format. The nearest thing would be an ipod / dap playing lossless files, probably with an external portable amp as the output stages in these things today are very poor on the whole.

 

[panda]

would you mind posting a sample clip of home ripped version vs redbook of the same album?
i find vinyl to sound better than digital but do not use the format for various reasons. if i find your experience to be true then i would certainly contemplate doing home rips myself...

 

[Herandu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by panda /img/forum/go_quote.gif would you mind posting a sample clip of home ripped version vs redbook of the same album? i find vinyl to sound better than digital but do not use the format for various reasons. if i find your experience to be true then i would certainly contemplate doing home rips myself...

There is a cracking good topic about this at Computer based audio discussion - Page 20 - The Art of Sound Forum and includes waveforms etc.

 

[jsplice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif 2) A Vinyl transfer to DVD-A is redundant in information terms. LP on a good day has maybe 75 - 80db dynamic range, 24 bits gives you 144db massive overkill and wasting space, even lowly 16 bits gives you 96db way more than enough, you just do not need 24 bits to play back a vinyl rip, nor do you need 96K or 192K sampling, you cannot hear 48K or 96K .

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Technically speaking, 24 bits may not be needed for the dynamic range that LPs can provide, rather it is the sampling rate that I believe makes more of the difference. Playback from an analog source gives you a continuous waveform (albeit somewhat distorted), unlike the chopped up and sampled waveform that is saved in digital PCM format. The more samples you have, the closer you get to a continuous waveform, and the more information you are able to playback. 16 bit 192 KHz would be nice, but I don't believe that 192 KHz is supported in 16 bit mode by a lot of devices, hence the rips to 24/192.

SACD took this concept of waveform continuity to a new level with its 1-bit, super high sampling rate to reproduce a waveform that is very smooth and closer to what is recreated by analog playback. I have heard the differences between SACD and redbook, and they are more than obvious to my ears.

 

[BigTony]

I've been ripping LP's to DSD on my Sony, and I do like them quite alot. Big files, but great sound. My turntable setup isn't the best, but it can turn in some great rips. Sadly the source of my vinyl woes is the vinyl itself, just got bored with poor pressings in the 80's and have been listening to CDs since.

 

[doomlordis]

The ONLY reason to rip Vinyl is if the master is superior to its redbook equivilent.
DVD-A is overkill, i think its funny that so many posters here think that the sample rate of CD creates some sort of join the dots waveform that has massive gaps that will have audible artifacts and Vinyl has this 100% super accurate to master analogue uber waveform.
I have several Vinyl rips for the above reason i gave and i wish a rebook equivilant was available so i didnt have to listen to the damn dust (and my records are clean) on them.

 

[Herandu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by doomlordis /img/forum/go_quote.gif i think its funny that so many posters here think that the sample rate of CD creates some sort of join the dots waveform that has massive gaps that will have audible artifacts and Vinyl has this 100% super accurate to master analogue uber waveform.

And they are absolutely correct

.

 

[jsplice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herandu /img/forum/go_quote.gif And they are absolutely correct .

Well see the difference here is that I enjoy both formats, CD and vinyl. Therefore when I rag on either format, it is justified.